Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 103 (2015) 151 – 158

The 13th Hypervelocity Impact Symposium

Spacecraft for Hypervelocity Impact Research – An Overview of

Capabilities, Constraints and the Challenges of Getting There
Jan Thimo Grundmanna*, Bernd Dachwaldb, Christian D. Grimma, Ralph Kahlec, Aaron Dexter Kocha,
Christian Kraused, Caroline Langea, Dominik Quantiusa, Stephan Ulamecd
a
DLR German Aerospace Center, Institute of Space Systems; Robert-Hooke-Strasse 7, 28359 Bremen, Germany
b
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Hohenstaufenallee 6, 52064 Aachen, Germany
c
DLR German Aerospace Center – Space Operations and Astronaut Training – Space Flight Technology Dept., 82234 Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
d
DLR Space Operations and Astronaut Training – MUSC,51147 Köln, Germany

Abstract

We present an introductory overview of the capabilities, constraints and challenges to be taken into account in the design of space
missions for HVI research and application, focusing on related planetary defence applications, small spacecraft approaches, using our
activities and projects as examples. Large lightweight deployable structure applications are discussed, for large-scale photovoltaic arrays
in advanced solar-electric propulsion missions, and for solar sailing as a non-fuel-constrained method of achieving high-energy or
retrograde orbit and multiple target missions. Small asteroid landers are discussed as vehicles for precursor exploration of impact target
asteroids, precision target orbit determination, and for impact process monitoring that also can be deployed from sail-based missions.
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Curators of the University of Missouri On behalf of the Missouri University of Science and Technology
Keywords: small spacecraft; planetary defence; asteroid lander; solar sail; high velocity impact

1. Introduction

The recent developments in planetary defence following the Chelyabinsk airburst have led to renewed interest in
practical asteroid deflection methods based on current technology. The kinetic energy interceptor (KEI), a hypervelocity
impact (HVI) application, is a promising mitigation method for small to medium sized asteroids headed for Earth impact
with warning times of several years or more. The KEI needs further HVI research to determine the conversion efficiency of
impact energy to momentum transfer for various target compositions and structures. Considering the limitations of ground-
based facilities, it seems possible that space-based experiments can widen the accessible parameter space for basic research.
Spacecraft entered the realm of active experimental HVI studies on July 4th, 2005 with the DEEP IMPACT impactor
successfully autoguiding into the nucleus of comet 9P/Tempel (Tempel 1) at 10.3 km/s relative velocity. The impactor
mainly took images of the 7.6 · 4.9 km nucleus which were recorded for re-transmission to Earth by the main spacecraft
flying by safely at a minimum distance of 500 km. Because the success of one mission goal – dust cloud generation – was
spectacularly achieved, the other mission goal – imaging the crater – could not be achieved immediately by the main
spacecraft in its fast fly-by [1]. While observations of the comet materials in the dust cloud were highly successful,
phenomena related to the impact process could only be observed from distances larger than 700 km at a resolution of 2 μrad
in panchromatic images taken every few seconds [2]. Confirmation of the creation of an artificial impact crater by imagery
had to wait for another fly-by of 9P/Tempel in 2011, by NEXT, the re-purposed STARDUST spacecraft. The crater generated

* Jan Thimo Grundmann. Tel.: +49-421-24420-1107; fax: +49-421-24420-1120.

E-mail address: jan.grundmann@dlr.de.
1877-7058 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Curators of the University of Missouri On behalf of the Missouri University of Science and Technology
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.04.021
152 Jan Thimo Grundmann et al. / Procedia Engineering 103 (2015) 151 – 158

by DEEP IMPACT had a diameter of 150 m and was about 30 m deep with a central mound likely of fall-back material almost
completely filling the cavity [3]. STARDUST had previously visited comet 81P/Wild (Wild 2) in 2004 to collect dust samples.
Particles in the μm range were caught during this fly-by to within 234 km of Wild 2 at 6.1 km/s by an aerogel target [4]
which was returned to Earth by capsule in 2006 during the fastest re-entry of an artificial object at 12.9 km/s. [5] Although
planetary (re-)entries into exponentially dense atmospheres have been flown at entry velocities from about 5 km/s at Mars or
Titan [6] to the 47.8 km/s of the Galileo Probe capsule at Jupiter, these are not sudden interactions of two colliding solid
bodies. Impact, demanding on the design of a spacecraft though simple in principle as a landing method, has remained the
exception; where (or rather, when) it was used successfully, destruction of the spacecraft was accepted and the approach
velocity was kept to the minimum to maximize data taking time for the mission’s planetary science objectives. [7]

2. Planetary Defence Background – Target NEO instead of Target Earth

The widely reported and just barely non-lethal atmospheric entry of the Chelyabinsk bolide on February 15th, 2013,
returned the focus on planetary defence (PD). In the aftermath of this event, the size-frequency distribution of natural
impactors at Earth and their potential for destructive effects on the ground, and technical options for NEO deflection were
revisited extensively [8]. The first wave of attention to the NEO threat had earlier recognized the rare but potentially
globally catastrophic impacts of km-scale asteroids (NEA) based on the observations of early photographic astronomical
surveys. It drew strongly on prehistoric [9] and historical data [10]. This was formalized into the goal to discover 90% of all
NEAs larger than 1 km diameter, relatively quickly followed up by the definition of Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHA)
of at least 140 m diameter which can approach Earth to within 0.05 AU. The ongoing dedicated NEO surveys based on
mass automatic exposure and processing of CCD images [11] confirmed the significant contribution to the threat of the
much more frequent small impactors with regional or locally devastating effects [12]. NEAs in the sub-PHA size range have
recently become accessible enough to observation to enable estimates of the population based on re-discovery rates which
indicate that their relative frequency is somewhat higher than expected from earlier extrapolations down from the PHA size
range [13]. Also, modelling of the effects of atmospheric entry and asteroid fragmentation strongly suggests much higher
yield to ground-level damage efficiency than previously expected from observations made e.g. at the 1908 Tunguska impact
site. [14,15] The shift of focus towards the threat posed by smaller, more frequent impactors also changed the approach
towards deflection. Although the distribution of encounter velocities is very similar for all sizes of NEAs, the impulse
necessary to deflect an object on a given orbit to a safe passage of Earth reduces with its mass – a substantial reduction of
requirements for the expected likely next event: The now become unlikely case of a surprise civilization killer asteroid was
replaced by impacts just slightly too large to be dealt with by practical application of preparedness and civil defence
infrastructures but likely to occur on human timescales. For yet smaller impactors, the choice is to stand and stare or duck
and cover. This made deflection feasible within the present capabilities of the Earth’s spaceflight infrastructure. The vast
improvements in the global NEO observation and tracking capabilities created in the same period have greatly increased the
likely lead time at which a reliable positive prediction of impact can be made; cf. [16] and ref. therein. Early PD scenarios
envisaged nuclear payloads of unprecedented size to be put on the largest launch vehicles ever built – and long since
decommissioned – for launch on very short warning lead times [17]. Now, derivates of already flown and currently
developing interplanetary missions, some of which are discussed briefly below, can meet deflection requirements on
timelines of several years to a few decades from discovery to effects application. Advanced methods of deflection are being
discussed, e.g. [18,19,20]. Liberated from the non-technical burdens of nuclear solutions and the justified concerns
regarding their realization (cf. [21]), it is possible to apply these planetary defence related technologies also for the research
of HVI where the expense of going into deep space is justified by the wider capabilities offered.

3. Solar System Exploration Background – Eggs and Baskets

After the era of first exploration of our Solar System when early spacecraft were expected to fail and were thus flown
frequently and in pairs, there was a transition to rare, large, single spacecraft missions in the late 1970s. Consequently,
failures became rare and costly in financial and programmatic as well as scientists’ and engineers’ career lifetime terms. The
resulting stagnation of active experience produces a conservative regulated environment of standardization and processes
which keeps success rates as high as the time and budget required to build and fly such spacecraft. Since the 1990s this
trend has, if not reversed, then at least mainly due to waning interest and resulting budgetary restrictions left some space for
smaller, faster and cheaper missions; adjectives not to be confused with simple or crude. Small missions are fundamentally
as complex as their larger predecessors with similar scientific purpose; they require roughly the same development effort for
the same tasks, sometimes significantly more just to stay small and earn the reward of affordable facilities, launchers, and
most of all, a thoroughly optimized and rigorously understood system. Alternative propulsion methods, i.e. any other than
 Jan Thimo Grundmann et al. / Procedia Engineering 103 (2015) 151 – 158 153

storable chemical propellant based thrusters and the use of planetary gravity assists, are only slowly and ‘from below’
entering the segment of science missions. They are primarily used on technology demonstration missions adapted to a
planetary science objective: Here, small spacecraft are already now the driver of development. Early examples were the 373
kg DEEP SPACE 1 (DS1) which visited asteroid (9969) Braille and comet 19P/Borelly using solar-electric ion propulsion of
2.1 kW power [22,23,24]; the 367 kg European Moon probe SMART-1 which used a solar-electric Hall effect thruster of
1.2 kW to raise its orbit from the initial geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) to capture into lunar polar orbit [25]; and the first
successful asteroid sample return by the 510 kg Japanese probe HAYABUSA using solar-electric xenon ion engines [26]. For
the largest science missions, the transition towards electric propulsion is only beginning – 56% of the launch mass of the
CASSINI-HUYGENS and MESSENGER spacecraft, each, was chemical propellant, but only 34% of BEPICOLOMBO is
propellant, of which more than half is xenon for solar-electric propulsion. [27] The obvious next step is the use of large-area
structures, either to generate more photovoltaic power for solar-electric propulsion or to be employed directly as solar sails
and do away with fuel constraints. A solar power sail has been proposed by JAXA for a Trojan asteroid sample-return
mission [28,29] on the basis of the successful solar sail demonstrator IKAROS launched as a secondary payload with the
Venus probe Akatsuki. [30,31] IKAROS also served as launcher ballast mass (sic!) and was thus not mass optinized.

4. Mission Scenarios to Support HVI Research

In the following, we provide an overview of projects, studies and mission scenarios that show potential uses for HVI
research and related experiments in space.

4.1. “So hoist the foil and booms…”* – from Huge Photovoltaic Arrays to the GOSSAMER Solar Sail Roadmap

The impact velocities that can be achieved for macroscopic objects are limited by the performance of chemical
propellants, electrical power handling capability and air drag on Earth. Similarly, the performance of chemical and electrical
propulsion of spacecraft limits the accessibility of small solar system bodies (SSSB) unless gravity assists on major planets
are possible and the associated long cruise flight times acceptable. Solar sails are expected to be capable of achieving
velocities far beyond those commonly feasible for traditional space missions, which would enable access to many more
SSSB targets. They could also enable collision experiments at relative velocities far beyond those currently achievable on
Earth. Several solar sail experiments have been flown or are nearing flight hardware status. [28,30,31] Some of us work on
the GOSSAMER-1 large lightweight structures and solar sail deployment demonstrator which is in the advanced stages of
development at DLR. In its solar sail application it is the first step in the DLR-ESTEC GOSSAMER Roadmap for the
development of solar sail technology, leading to practical sailcraft of sizes enabling unique science missions that are
presently exceedingly difficult to achieve or not feasible using other post-launch propulsion methods. Among these mission
types, three were selected for detailed study as promising candidates for a first science mission using the expected technolgy
and maturity level to result from the GOSSAMER Roadmap, on the basis that they are for the foreseeable future only feasibile
by solar sail: A multiple NEO rendezvous mission with the capability of additional fly-bys between stays at 3 NEAs within
10 years of flight time [32]; a displaced-L1 spaceweather mission which bears some similarity with an Earth-co-orbital
NEA rendezvous flight profile [33]; and a solar polar orbiter mission which bears some similarity with a highly inclined and
eccentric orbit NEA rendezvous flight profile [34]. All these missions are small spacecraft in the 100…500 kg range that
could ride as secondary passengers to Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) or higher orbits and proceed from there on sail
thrust and an optional small kickstage to reduce exposure to the radiation belts of Earth. They are all within the capabilities
of currently available sail film and boom technology hardware. One advantage of solar sail as a propulsion method in
particular relevant to the multiple NEO rendezvous mission is the relative ease of target object change during the mission. It
would for example be possible to re-direct a mission similar to [32] after launch to a newly discovered target of urgent
interest or change the priority of target objects when the progress of science or other missions makes this desirable. Some
flexibility of this kind is, within the limits of carried fuel and photovoltaic power, also possible for some lightweight solar-
electric missions, as was shown e.g. by the target object changes of DEEP SPACE 1 throughout its project and flight history.
Also, the adaptation of the cruise trajectories of HAYABUSA to and from (25143) Itokawa was only possible due to advanced
propulsion capabilities, as is the double rendezvous of DAWN with the two largest main belt asteroids, (4) Vesta and (1)
Ceres. For future solar-electric propulsion missions, the Huge Photovoltaic Array technology allows a significant
improvement of the electrical power to weight ratio. In the extreme, the spacecraft can be dominated by a solar power sail
structure, e.g. [29,31].
Although no specific mission analysis could be undertaken within the scope of this introductory presentation, it may
however be assumed that any instantaneous heliocentric orbit reached during the constantly evolving low-thrust trajectories
presented in these and other low-thrust propulsion interplanetary mission studies may be taken as the orbit of a NEO to
154 Jan Thimo Grundmann et al. / Procedia Engineering 103 (2015) 151 – 158

rendezvous with or may intersect the orbit of a NEO to be studied in fast fly-by or to be impacted. Solar sails, which are in
principle not limited by propellant supplies, can within realistic mission durations and within the limts of present spacecraft
technology development attain fully retrograde orbits. These seem suitable for head-on collisions with objects also within
the Earth’s orbit, putting within reach encounter velocities in excess of 75 km/s for objects larger than 100 kg [35,36,37].
Although terminal guidance at closing speeds beyond several km/s certainly is a formidable challenge [38,39,40], it seems
quite possible, particularly when cooperative targets are considered.

4.2. MASCOT – ground truth from a small asteroid lander

The study of HVI processes requires measurements close to highly energetic events which are inherently dangerous. The
Japanese HAYABUSA missions use small landers to help explore their target asteroids, and there have been previous attempts
to use small landers for the exploration of small objects in the solar system, e.g. by the FOBOS missions to Mars’ moon
Phobos. Some of us work on the Mobile Asteroid Surface Scout, MASCOT, which has in the past 3 years been developed
by DLR and CNES for a flight opportunity on HAYABUSA-2, after 4 years of more generic small SSSB lander studies. The
MASCOT asteroid lander packs four full-scale science instruments and relocation capability into a shoebox-sized 10 kg
spacecraft, a lander on the scale of a typical science instrument for a typical interplanetary mission. The Flight Model (FM)
delivered to JAXA in June 2014 was launched aboard the HAYABUSA-2 space probe on December 3rd, 2014, and appeared
in good health at its first power-up 2 weeks later. HAYABUSA-2 is carrying MASCOT along to asteroid (162173) 1999 JU3
using solar-electric propulsion. MASCOT, following constraints set by its mothership and target asteroid, is an organically
integrated high-density design [41,42,43,44]. Main MASCOT subsystem features are as follows: Structure: The MASCOT
structure is a highly integrated and ultra-lightweight truss-frame made from a CFRP and Rohacell® foam sandwich.
Mechanisms: MASCOT has three internal mechanisms: (i) the preload release mechanism to release the preload in the
structure across the separation mechanism interface; (ii) the separation mechanism to realize the push-off of MASCOT out
of the Mechanical Support Structure, MESS, recessed inside the HAYABUSA-2 envelope; and (iii) the mobility mechanism
for uprighting and hopping. Thermal: MASCOT uses a semi-passive thermal control concept, with two heatpipes, a radiator,
and Multi-Layer Insulation for heat rejection during active phases, supported by a heater for thermal control of the battery
and the main electronics during passive phases. Power: MASCOT is using a primary battery for the power supply during its
on-asteroid operational phase. During cruise, it is supplied by HAYABUSA-2. Communication: All housekeeping and
scientific data is sent to Earth via a relay link with the HAYABUSA-2 main spacecraft. The link is set up using a redundant
omnidirectional UHF-Band transceiver and two patch antennae, one on each side of the lander. On-Board Computer: The
MASCOT OBC is a redundant system providing data storage, instrument interfacing, command and data handling, as well
as autonomous surface operation functions. Attitude Determination: The knowledge of the lander’s attitude on the asteroid
is key to the success of its uprighting and hopping function. The attitude is determined by a threefold set of sensors: optical
distance sensors, photo electric cells and thermal sensors.
Looking at the worldwide PD and science-related planning for missions to small bodies in the next years, it is inherent
that future flight opportunities will arise for such a small versatile add-on landing package which has the capability to
complement, complete and counterbalance the main mission’s objectives at a comparably low cost. This is why at DLR, we
are using our knowledge [45] to build on this heritage by carrying forward the idea of further MASCOT derivatives. Such
derivatives or variants will differ in their main features such as lifetime (long-lived vs. short-lived), survivable landing
velocity (small or high velocity landing, with or without crushable shells) or instrument suite (e.g. radar tomography vs.
geology vs. geochemistry), but will all be based on a common platform. The main goal is to advance the current design from
the dedicated lander MASCOT, to a generic instrument carrier able to deliver a variety of science payload combinations on
different mother-missions to different target bodies. To minimize the effort of redevelopment and the time to obtain a new
design, we are employing principles of Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) [46] and Concurrent Engineering. Small
landers can also serve to explore the interior of small bodies, e.g. [47]. Particularly when deployed in numbers, they can be
used to explore environments too dangerous for the main spacecraft to encounter directly. Jump capability enables the well-
timed study of impact effects off the target surface in open space, e.g. the dust and gas composition within the ejecta cone.

4.3. PHILAE – Insights at the Heart of a Comet

ROSETTA is a Cornerstone Mission of the previous Horizon 2000 ESA Programme. The mission was launched in 2004
and reached its target, comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in 2014. [48,49] After an intense phase of remote investigation
of the comet nucleus including the selection of an appropriate and safe landing site, Agilkia, during the summer of 2014, the
ROSETTA Lander, PHILAE, performed the first ever landing on the surface of a comet on November 12th, 2014. [50] It has an
overall mass of about 98 kg, including 26.7 kg of science payload, and is based on a carbon fibre / aluminium honeycomb
 Jan Thimo Grundmann et al. / Procedia Engineering 103 (2015) 151 – 158 155

structure, a power system including a solar generator, primary and secondary batteries, a central data management system
and an S-band communications system using the ROSETTA Orbiter as relay. During cruise the Lander was attached to the
Orbiter with a Mechanical Support System (MSS) which also includes the push off device that separated PHILAE from the
Orbiter. The selected landing scenario foresaw separation at an altitude of 22.5 km. The descent to the surface took 7 hours,
as expected. At touch-down anchoring harpoons were to be fired and a cold gas system should have prevented re-bouncing
[51] but failed. During a first scientific sequence of 57 hours while PHILAE was powered mostly by its primary batteries,
several instruments and subsystems were operated simultaneously. Each experiment was operated at least once. In the
expected long term operations phase the experiments should work mainly in sequence. Data evaluation will then be carried
out primarily offline, while preplanning activities are performed in parallel. Lander experiment operations are expected to
last up to a few months on the comet surface. In a historical sidenote, PHILAE, for a long time merely known as ROLAND,
the ROSETTA Lander, was resurrected as an instrument proposal for the orbiter by a grassroots movement of interested
scientists and engineers, after being descoped from the mission following the earlier deletion of an even more ambitious
sample return option. This represents the first time that a lander, though in itself a complete spacecraft, is not the driving
element of the main mission. The concept of integrating a small spacecraft style lander at the instrument level of the
mothership mission has since been repeated by the unfortunately lost BEAGLE 2 on MARSEXPRESS, and the target markers,
various MINERVAs and MASCOT on the HAYABUSA missions.

4.4. AIDA – Together for a Twin

The Asteroid Impact & Deflection Assessment (AIDA) mission will be the first space experiment to demonstrate asteroid
impact hazard mitigation by using a kinetic impactor to deflect an asteroid. AIDA is a joint NASA-ESA mission in pre-
Phase A study, which includes the NASA Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission and the ESA Asteroid Impact
Monitor (AIM) rendezvous mission. The primary goals of AIDA are first to test our ability to impact a small near-Earth
asteroid by a hypervelocity projectile and second to measure and characterize the deflection caused by the impact. The
AIDA target will be the binary asteroid (65803) Didymos, with the deflection experiment to occur in October, 2022. The
DART impact on the secondary member of the binary at ~6 km/s will alter the binary orbit period, which can be measured
by Earth-based observatories. The AIM spacecraft will monitor results of the impact in situ at Didymos. AIDA will return
fundamental new information on the mechanical response and impact cratering process at real asteroid scales, and
consequently on the collisional evolution of asteroids with implications for planetary defense, human spaceflight, and near-
Earth object science and resource utilization. The AIM component of AIDA has also been studied in variations of spacecraft
and science payload sizes for different classes of launch vehicles. These enable accommodation of landers on instrument
level in a size range approximately between MASCOT and PHILAE. [52] In the latter’s mass and envelope a number of
smaller landers could be carried as an alternative concept to cover both bodies of the binary at several landing sites, each.

4.5. Fast fly-by study, kinetic impactor, and a brief but complete experience – ASTEROIDSQUADS/iSSB

A prime candidate method for NEO deflection are kinetic impactors in which a fast fly-by trajectory geometry is
modified into a direct hit that transfers to the target all carried momentum of the spacecraft and adds to this that of the ejecta
which are generated by the impact energy. In the deflection application in planetary defence, the resulting velocity change
of the target, though small, can accumulate into a safe miss distance in the time between the kinetic impactor’s hit and the
object’s close encounter with Earth. The efficiency of the conversion of impact energy to ejecta momentum is to a large
extent uncertain. To reduce this uncertainty, various practical experiments and HAIV space mission scenarios [39] have
been proposed, including the DART component of AIDA [52]. In an ad-hoc effort for the 2011 Planetary Defence
Conference, some of us participated in a distributed concurrent engineering study of a PHA multiple flyby/impact mission
concept. It combines a heavy lauch vehicle test as an affordable launch opportunity with a concerted practical exercise of
the NEO observation and interplanetary spaceflight infrastructure, from simulated threat discovery to mitigation, optionally
including a civil defence response coordination exercise. In this concept, the timing of the launch vehicle test with its
expectable delays replaces the coincidence of discovery of a genuine threat and drives the selection of a target object at
relatively short notice. This target to which an already prepared mission having to fly with built hardware has to adapt then
introduces into its operation real uncertainties and constraints as could be expected from a newly discovered object on
which knowledge grows from nil. The mission scenario was restricted to operations relatively close to Earth to minimize
mission duration, spacecraft lifetime and infrastructure requirements for the flotilla of several to tens of largely identical
spacecraft to be simultaneously operated. It used extremely high data rate transmission to provide target imagery until
impact in a scenario of data store-forward relay by two or several of the small impactors in their final approach on the target
[21]. The same infrastructure could support instruments studying collision processes after first contact on a timescale of
156 Jan Thimo Grundmann et al. / Procedia Engineering 103 (2015) 151 – 158

order spacecraft length / relative velocity, m / km/s ~ ms. Such instrumentation, albeit for now with much slower readout, is
being developed at DLR for the study of space debris impacts on Earth-orbiting spacecraft. [53] The integration of such a
practical deflection experiment with the ground-based planetary defence infrastructures and would certainly serve to
develop and inform global and local decisionmaking processes [54] and promote the further refinement of related tools [55].

5. Getting There – the Small Spacecraft Approach

Recent interplanetary missions have brought developments that favour small spacecraft. But small spacecraft also pose
their own unique challenges, some resulting from the opportunities that uniquely present themselves to them, others from
the common misunderstanding that size matters in terms of the effort required or total cost of ownership.

5.1. A little Far Out – Small & Secondary Payload Launch Options& Capabilities to Earth Escape

Many launch vehicles have a minimum payload weight that is due to the advances in spacecraft miniaturization no longer
filled by smaller interplanetary missions. For example, IKAROS was added as ballast to achieve the minimum lauch mass
of the H-IIA launch vehicle of the Japanese Venus probe AKATSUKI, and was therefore not mass-optimized. [28,30,31]
Additionally, one interplanetary and three Earth-orbiting cubesats were carried. Future launches may follow the same
concept and have ‘live’ ballast added in the form of secondary passengers that go along into the escape trajectory, as in the
case of HAYABUSA-2. This trend will likely offer affordable launch opportunities also to small interplanetary missions as
those discussed above, though under similar constraints as for secondary passengers to Earth orbit. It will pose significant
time constraints, physical size constraints, and AIV challenges to these projects which will be highly unusual to the
established interplanetary missions and science community, but have been mastered in the course of PHILAE and MASCOT.

5.2. Here and Now – the Challenges of Assembly, Integration, and Test and Verification

The Assembly, Integration and Test/Verification (AIT/AIV) is the final stage in producing a spacecraft and readying it
for launch. It includes the simulation and test of the expected space environment and flight operation to verify and
demonstrate the overall performance and reliability of the flight system. Choosing the right philosophy or approach of the
Verification and Validation process is crucial and driven by risk tolerance. Less verification implies but does not necessarily
create more risk. More verification implies but does not guarantee less risk [56]. The classical verification approach
(Prototype Approach) which evolves in a mostly sequential and also successive fashion would be of course the most reliable
method to choose as it gives the highest confidence that the final product performs well in all aspects of the mission [57].
However, if the schedule is heavily constrained in time, this extensive and time consuming method cannot be applied. On
the other hand, the Protoflight Approach, where a single flight model is tested with replacing critical subsystems during the
integration process, is also not applicable, since it is very likely that the chosen payloads and the system itself have very
heterogeneous maturity levels. Hence, the test philosophy will lead to a Hybrid Approach with a mixture of conventional
and tailored model strategies. This approach is common practice in scientific robotic missions [56] but it can be maximized
for effectivity and time even further. The project can start with a baseline on the classical sequential approach to ensure a
minimum number of physical models required to achieve confidence in the product verification with the shortest planning
and a suitable weighing of costs and risks. But this approach can be adapted on a case by case scenario, where the model
philosophy evolves along the verification and test process depending on the particular system and subsystem readiness. This
includes test models reorganization, refurbishing and re-assigning previous models for other verification tasks if
appropriate, skipping test cases, parallel testing of similar or equal models and for some components allowing the
qualification on system level. More specifically, parallelization of testing activities using identical copies and flexibility in
the model philosophy will create independent unique test threads only joining their dependencies at key points where
optional other roads could be chosen. Like Concurrent Engineering, a methodology based on the parallelization of
engineering tasks nowadays used for optimizing and shorten design cycles in early project phases, the term “Concurrent
AIV” has recently been introduced to express many simultaneous running test and verification activities [45]. In effect, the
development, test and verification track of Software Development, Functional Testing, Mechanical AIV and Thermal AIV
can get their own independent routes sharing their verification processes. Almost all environmental and functional tests with
subsystems can be performed on EM and STM level before the QM and FM are fully assembled which effectively reduced
potential delays. In addition, the development of the onboard software including individual instrument and subsystem
software, can be performed completely independent with first simulated payloads and later with real hardware-in-the-loop
electronic when they become available. This way, every payload and subsystem can freely do debugging tests which can
take longer time independently. With this approach, most of the problems for the interfaces and functionality of each
 Jan Thimo Grundmann et al. / Procedia Engineering 103 (2015) 151 – 158 157

subsystem can be found before FM integration. The challenges in creating parallel development lines are found in team and
facility resources if these are not readily and on-demand available. The key is to identify test dependencies, test sequences
and which test could be performed in parallel. This philosophy is also more complex as it requires overview of the
development process of the mother spacecraft, the ongoing progress on system level as well as insight in all payloads and
subsystems. It may sound unreasonable to perform the development of a spacecraft in such a manner, whereas well
established methods form a “standard way”. But if a project is left with no choice of having the luxury of excessive testing,
such an approach may be the only option. That this method is not just a theory can be seen in the DLR MASCOT project, a
fast paced and high performance deep space project. With a model philosophy tailored ‘live’ at system level it integrates a
unique mix of conventional and tailored model philosophies at units level. A dynamically adapted test programme, limited
by a fixed launch date, enabled the shortest planning and suitable weighing of cost and risk. Using Concurrent AIV to
identify design and manufacturing issues shortened the project timeline further and kept it at an acceptable risk. In effect, a
typical 4 to 5 year system-level AIV phase was reduced to 2½ years. Within these, from the start with the first breadboard
model, the MASCOT team has successfully completed approx. 30 MASCOT system level tests, including Shock and
Vibration, Thermal Vacuum, Full System Functional, EMC and Integration campaigns. On HAYABUSA-2 it has completed
another approx. 10 test campaigns for Sinusoidal Vibration, Mass Balance, Acoustic Vibration, Thermal Vacuum and
System End-to-End tests. To develop the MASCOT system and make it flight ready more than 50 additional System Unit
tests were performed, excluding any performed by the Payloads or other subsystems provided by the collaborating partners.
This culminates in more than 100 different test campaigns performed in roughly half the time usually allocated for such a
prototype project which would follow a standardized way, and testing for operations planning continues on spare models.

6. Summary

Using missions and projects in which we are involved as examples we provided an overview of the capabilities,
constraints and challenges of small spacecraft designs which we consider to have the potential of supporting HVI research
and application. We hope that the experiences and lessons learned from these studies and projects and relevant similar
efforts accessible from the references below can provide a useful primer for the conceptual design of spacecraft for research
ranging from basic HVI phenomena to planetary defence application.

References
[1] L. McFadden, in: P. Davis, Mission Results – Excavating Comet Tempel 1, http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/results/excavating.cfm (accessed
20OCT2014 11:08)
[2] S. Wissler, J. Rocca, D. Kubitschek, Deep Impact Comet Encounter: Design, Development, and Operations of the Big Event at Tempel 1, GT-
SSEC.C.2 05-3268
[3] T. Greicius, Tempel 1 Impact Site, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stardust/multimedia/Schultz4.html (accessed 20OCT2014 08:49)
[4] D. Brownlee, The Stardust Mission: Analyzing Samples from the Edge of the Solar System, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2014.42:179-205.
[5] D.O. ReVelle, W.N. Edwards, Stardust – An artificial, low-velocity “meteor” fall and recovery: 15 January 2006, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 42,
Nr 3, 271-299 (2007)
[6] B. Kazeminejad, M. Pérez-Ayúcar, D.H. Atkinson, J.-P. Lebreton, Huygens’ Entry and Descent through Titan’s Atmosphere: Methodology and Results
of the Trajectory Reconstruction, http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~atkinson/Huygens/Papers/JOSAR_Manuscript_V8.pdf
[7] R.C. Hall, Lunar Impact – A History of Project Ranger, NASA SP-4210
rd
[8] 3 IAA Planetary Defense Conference 2013 proceedings & report, http://pdc.iaaweb.org/?q=content/2013-flagstaff (accessed 21OCT2014 13:57)
[9] L.W. Alvarez, W. Alvarez, F. Asaro, H.V. Michel, Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction". Science 208 (4448): 1095–1108.
[10] J.S. Lewis, Rain of Iron and Ice: The Very Real Threat Of Comet And Asteroid Bombardment, 1997 amended paperback edition.
[11] A.B. Chamberlin, NEO Discovery Statistics, http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/stats/ (accessed 21OCT2014 14:55)
[12] A. Harris (U.S.), The Value of Enhanced NEO Surveys, IAA-PDC13-05-09
[13] A. Harris (U.S.), The Population of Near-Earth Asteroids and Current Survey Completion, IAA-PDC13-02-09P
[14] M.B.E. Boslough, D.A. Crawford, Low-altitude airbursts and the impact threat, International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 1441-1448
[15] G. Gisler, Low-Altitude Atmospheric and Water-Surface Effects of Small Impacts, IAA-PDC13-05-05
[16] J.T. Grundmann, Small Solar System Body Mitigation: A Realist’s Approach, IAA-WPP-301, P206 (only appendix included, full paper on request)
[17] L.A. Kleiman, Project Icarus: an MIT Student Project in Systems Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1968, and MIT Report No. 13.
[18] R. Kahle, Modelle und Methoden zur Abwendung von Kollisionen von Asteroiden und Kometen mit der Erde, D 83, TU Berlin, August 2005.
[19] J. Bellerose, C. Foster, D. Morrison, B. Jaroux, D. Maruro, Performance and Derived Requirements of a Gravity Tractor serving as a precursor to a
Kinetic Impactor within the NEOShield Study Framework, IAA-PDC13-04-18.
[20] A. Gibbings, M. Vasile, J.-M. Hopkins, D. Burns, I. Watson, Experimental Characterization of the Thrust Induced by Laser Ablation onto an Asteroid,
IAA-PDC13-04-21.
[21] J.T. Grundmann, S. Mottola, M. Drentschew, M. Drobczyk, R. Findlay, A. Heidecker, R. Kahle, E. Kheiri, A. Koch, V. Maiwald, O. Mierheim, F.
Nohka, D. Quantius, P. Zabel, T. van Zoest, ASTEROIDSQUADS/iSSB – a Synergetic NEO Deflection Campaign and Mitigation Effects Test
Mission Scenario, IAA-WPP-323 S5_0919_2162714.
[22] M.D. Rayman, P.A. Chadbourne, J.S. Culwell, S.N. Williams, Mission Design for Deep Space 1: a Low-Thrust Technology Validation Mission, Acta
astronautica 45 (4-9): 381–388 (1999)
158 Jan Thimo Grundmann et al. / Procedia Engineering 103 (2015) 151 – 158

[23] M.D. Rayman, P. Varghese, D.H. Lehman, L.L. Livesay, Results from the Deep Space 1 technology validation mission, Acta Astronautica 47 (2-9):
475–487 (2000)
[24] M.D. Rayman, The successful conclusion of the Deep Space 1 Mission: important results without a flashy title, Space Technology 23 (2): 185–196
(2003).
[25] D.M. Di Cara, D. Estublier, Smart-1: An analysis of flight data, Acta Astronautica 57 (2–8): 250–256 (2005).
[26] H. Yano, T. Kubota, H. Miyamoto, T. Okada, D. Scheeres, Y. Takagi, K. Yoshida, M. Abe, S. Abe, O. Barnouin-Jha, A. Fujiwara, S. Hasegawa, T.
Hashimoto, M. Ishiguro, M. Kato, J. Kawaguchi, T. Mukai, J. Saito, S. Sasaki, M. Yoshikawa, Touchdown of the Hayabusa Spacecraft at the Muses
Sea on Itokawa, Science Vol. 312 (2006), 1350-1353.
[27] http://isa.ifsi-roma.inaf.it/BepiColombo/BC1/BC1.html (accessed 21OCT2014)
[28] H. Yano, O. Mori, S. Matsuura, R. Funase, R.Nakamura, F. Yoshida, E. Kokubo, N. Takato, IKAROS Team, JAXA Solar Power Sail Working Group,
The Solar Power Sail Mission to Jupiter Trojans, 10th IAA LCPM 2013, S5
[29] J. Kawaguchi, O. Mori, Y. Shirasawa, M. Yoshikawa, On the Trojan asteroid sample and return mission via solar-power sail – an innovative
engineering demonstration, ACM2014.
[30] O. Mori, H. Sawada, R. Funase, T. Endo, M. Morimoto, T. Yamamoto, Y. Tsuda, Y. Kawakatsu, J. Kawaguchi, Development of First Solar Power
Sail Demonstrator – IKAROS.
[31] O. Mori, Y. Shirasawa, H. Sawada, Y. Mimasu, Y. Tsuda, R. Funase, T. Saiki, T. Yamamoto, N. Motooka, Y. Kishino, J. Kawaguchi, IKAROS
Extended Mission and Advanced Solar Power Sail Mission, 63rd IAC 2012, IAC-12,D1,1,3,x15786
[32] B. Dachwald, H. Boehnhardt, U. Broj, U.R.M.E. Geppert, J.T. Grundmann, W. Seboldt, P. Seefeldt, P. Spietz, L. Johnson, E. Kührt, S. Mottola, M.
Macdonald, C.R. McInnes, M. Vasile, R. Reinhard, GOSSAMER Roadmap Technology Reference Study for a Multiple NEO Rendezvous Mission,
Advances in Solar Sailing, Springer Praxis 2014, pp 211-226.
[33] C.R. McInnes, V. Bothmer, B. Dachwald, U.R.M.E. Geppert, J. Heiligers, A. Hilgers, L. Johnson, M. Macdonald, R. Reinhard, W. Seboldt, P. Spietz,
Gossamer Roadmap Technology Reference Study for a Sub-L1 Space Weather Mission, in: M. Macdonald (ed.), Advances in Solar Sailing, 2014
(3rd International Symposium on Solar Sailing)
[34] M. Macdonald, C. McGrath, T. Appourchaux, B. Dachwald, W. Finsterle, L. Gizon, P.C. Liewer, C.R. McInnes,G. Mengali, W. Seboldt, T. Sekii, S.K.
Solanki, M. Velli, R.F. Wimmer-Schweingruber, P. Spietz, R. Reinhard, Gossamer Roadmap Technology Reference Study for a Solar Polar Mission,
in: M. Macdonald (ed.), Advances in Solar Sailing, 2014 (3rd International Symposium on Solar Sailing)
[35] B. Dachwald, R. Kahle, B. Wie, Solar Sailing Kinetic Energy Impactor (KEI) Mission Design Tradeoffs for Impacting and Deflecting Asteroid 99942
Apophis, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit, AIAA 2006-6178.
[36] B. Dachwald, R. Kahle, B. Wie, Head-On Impact Deflection of NEAs: A Case Study for 99942 Apophis, AIAA, Planetary Defense Conference 2007.
[37] B. Dachwald, B. Wie, Solar Sail Kinetic Energy Impactor Trajectory Optimization for an Asteroid-Deflection Mission, Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 44, No. 4, July–August 2007, DOI: 10.2514/1.22586.
[38] S. Bhaskaran, B. Kennedy, Closed Loop Terminal Guidance Navigation for a Kinetic Impactor Spacecraft, IAA-PDC13-04-02.
[39] J. Lyzhoft, M. Hawkins, B. Kaplinger, B. Wie, GPU-Based Optical Navigation and Terminal Guidance Simulation of a Hypervelocity Asteroid
Intercept Vehicle (HAIV), IAA-PDC13-04-23.
[40] J. Gil-Fernández, T. Prieto-Llanos, R. Cadenas, C. Corral, M. Graziano, The Challenge of Navigating Toward and Around a Small, Irregular NEO,
IAA-WPP-301, 02_03.
[41] C. Ziach, T.-M. Ho, C. Grimm, R. Findlay, C. Lange, L. Witte, M. Wrasmann, J. Biele, S. Ulamec, T. Spohn, M. Deleuze, J-P. Bibring, T. Okada, H.
Yano, J. Hendrikse, and the MASCOT Project Team, The Final Stages of MASCOT, a Small Asteroid Lander to Accompany HAYABUSA-II, IAC-13-
A.3.4.6.
[42] J.T. Grundmann, V. Baturkin, J. Biele, A. Bellion, E. Canalias, L. Celotti, F. Cordero, M. Deleuze, R. Findlay, S. Fredon, C. Grimm, J. Hendrikse, F.
Herrmann, T.-M. Ho, E. Jurado, C. Krause, R. Kroth, E. Ksenik, S. Kuss, C. Lange, M. Lange, M. Maier, L. Melac, O. Mierheim, P. Neugebauer, T.
Okada, S. Reershemius, J. Reill, B. Schäfer, H.-J. Sedlmayr, K. Stohlmann, N. Termtanasombat, S. Ulamec, M. Wrasmann, T. Yoshimitsu, C. Ziach,
T. van Zoest, “You’ve got 2 Years, 6 Months, 1 Week and 48 Hours!” – the Ongoing Engineering Adventure of MASCOT and its Implications for
Planetary Defence Missions, IAA-PDC13-04-06P.
[43] R. Findlay, T.-M. Ho, C. Lange, S. Wagenbach, L. Witte, C. Ziach, J. Biele, C. Krause, S. Ulamce, T. Spohn, T. Okada, H. Yano, and the MASCOT
project team, A Small Asteroid Lander Mission to Accompany HAYABUSA-II, Proceedings of the 63rd International Aeronautical Congress, Naples,
Italy, 2012, IAC-12-A3.4.7.
[44] C. Lange, R. Findlay, C. Grimm, J.T. Grundmann, T.-M. Ho, L. Witte, T. van Zoest, “How to build a 10 kg autonomous Asteroid landing package
with 3 kg of instruments in 6 years?” – Systems Engineering challenges of a high-density deep space system in the DLR MASCOT project, 2624640
(1325), SECESA 2012.
[45] C. Grimm, J. Hendrikse, M. Wrasmann, N. Termtanasombat, Concurrent AIV and Dynamic Model Strategy in Response to the New Normal of so
called Death March Projects! – The Engineering Venture as Experienced in the DLR MASCOT and HAYABUSA-2 Project –, 28th Aerospace Testing
Seminar, 2014.
[46] C. Lange, Using MBSE Methods to Design Generic System Platforms and Derivatives: A Methodology Applied to the Mobile Asteroid Surface Scout,
Systems Engineering and Concurrent Engineering for Space Applications, SECESA, 2014, Stuttgart, Germany
[47] C. Krause, T.-M. Ho, S. Ulamec, T. Zoest, A. Herique, J. Biele, L. Witte, E. Ksenik, C. Lange, S. Wagenbach, MAGIC Team, MASCOT Team,
ASSERT Team, MAGIC - Mobile Autonomous Generic Insstrument Carrier for the in-situ Investigation of NEO Surfaces and Interior, IAA-WPP-
323, P51_2161981.
[48] G. Schwehm, ROSETTA – The comet rendezvous mission, ESA-SP-1179
[49] K.-H. Glassmeier, H. Boehnhardt, D. Koschny, E. Kührt, I. Richter, The Rosetta Mission: Flying Towards the Origin of the Solar System, Space
Science Reviews (2006), DOI: 10.1007/s11214-006-9140-8
[50] S. Ulamec et al., RoLand, a Lander System for an active comet, IAA-95-IAA.11.1.06 (1995).
[51] M. Thiel, J. Stöcker, C. Robe, N.I. Kömle, G. Kargl, O. Hillenmaier, P. Lell, The Rosetta Lander Anchoring System, 2003.
[52] AIDA Mission Rationale, http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/completed/AIDA_MissionRationale_InterimRelease.pdf , AIDA Project Options,
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/AIDAProjectOptions_v1a.pdf
[53] W. Bauer, O. Romberg, C. Wiedemann, G. Drolshagen, P. Vörsmann, Development of in-situ Space Debris Detector, Advances in Space Research 54
(2014) 1858–1869.
[54] M. Boslough, Airburst Warning and Response, Planetary Defence Conference 2011, IAA-WPP-323, S4_1610_2166721
[55] M. Boslough, Impact Decision Support Diagrams, Planetary Defence Conference 2011, IAA-WPP-323, P68_2167459
[56] J.W. Larson et al., Applied Space Systems Engineering, Space Technology Series, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2009.
[57] W. Ley, K. Wittmann, W. Hallmann, Handbook of Space Technology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2009.
* I. Anderson, M. Barre, D. Pegg, P.-J. Vetesse, Apogee, in: Under Wraps, Chrysalis, 1984